Top

news

Stories

 

What Do You Have To Do To Get a Bottle of Wine Around Here?

Why you still can't buy wine with your groceries in New York

People in New York and other big cities love to ridicule places in flyover country, like Kansas or Utah, for their "blue laws"—arcane statutes that can make it tough for the thirsty to get a drink.

On 14th Street, Trader Joe's wines are kept in a separate storefront, for no good reason at all.
Sam Lewis
On 14th Street, Trader Joe's wines are kept in a separate storefront, for no good reason at all.

Just last month, Utah finally dropped its legendary "private club" rules that, for decades, had made it tough to get a cocktail in that state, though its liquor stores will continue to be closed on Sundays. Kansas still has 25 "dry" counties, where it's illegal to serve alcohol by the glass.

But New Yorkers have little reason to feel superior. New York's own liquor laws include one that doesn't seem to make much sense.

While you can get a drink of just about any kind of fermented beverage in thousands of establishments of all sorts in this city, at just about any time of the day or night, there's one thing you still cannot do in New York: pick up a bottle of wine while you're buying groceries.

Perhaps the most graphic result of that particular statute is plainly visible on 14th Street near Union Square.

Trader Joe's, the California grocery chain that made its reputation largely on selling inexpensive wines—the firm's sales of the Charles Shaw wine "Two Buck Chuck" became so famous that it inspired a New Yorker profile—was required to have two separate storefronts on 14th Street when it opened its doors in March 2006.

Unlike shoppers in the other parts of the country where Trader Joe's has stores, you can't pick up a bottle of Chardonnay while you're scoring Mandarin Orange Chicken or a package of Nuts About Antioxidants Trek Mix. For that, you have to go next door, where Trader Joe's sells vino in a separate space, simply to get around the New York law.

Two storefronts, sitting side by side. Clearly, for no good reason at all.

The thing is, New York's blue law isn't about lingering religious attitudes about alcohol, the way it is in places like Utah.

New York's grocery store wine ban is purely about political power.

In the last six months, the state's supermarkets mounted another sustained political campaign to repeal the wine ban—this time, enlisting the help of a supportive governor. But once again, a powerful group of New Yorkers succeeded in blocking the measure.

Who was it that blocked wine sales in grocery stores? Our own version of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union? Or some other association of uptight Carrie Nations?

No. It was the state's liquor stores and their lobbyists.

And the way your friendly corner hooch seller continues to keep wine drinkers from grabbing a bottle of red at the same time that they're picking up pasta, vegetables, and a pound of ground round is a classic lesson in how lobbyists, political strategists, and a tweaking of the truth control what gets done in the state of New York.

When Governor David Paterson declared his support for supermarkets and added a wine ban repeal to his 2009 budget package, backers of the measure believed they finally had a chance to get it through the state legislature.

But on January 28, just as the bill had reached a point of serious consideration in Albany, a previously unknown group calling itself "The Last Store on Main Street" suddenly appeared on the scene, circulating press releases opposing the measure.

The coalition showed off a sophisticated website and a large group of supporters that included various local and statewide liquor store associations and distributors. And it had somehow also enlisted some wineries to support its cause.

The group argued that the measure would "kill jobs" and ruin mom-and-pop liquor stores across the state, and it claimed that the bill would not raise anything close to the $160 million in state tax revenue claimed by its supporters.

"The Last Store is a coalition of wine retailers from around the state," says Wendi Leggitt, the group's spokeswoman. "These are one of the last remaining independent businesses in the state."

Leggitt works for Mercury Public Affairs, a powerful political consultancy partnered by ex–Pataki administration officials. They also employ ex–Democratic pols including former Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer. Leggitt was also the contact person for Mercury's political action committee, which doles out tens of thousands of dollars each year in campaign contributions to elected officials and political party organizations.

Leggitt's boss, Michael McKeon, also spoke on behalf of the Last Store coalition. He served as a top aide to Pataki, and worked on the former governor's political campaigns.

In an e-mail to its members, which was obtained by the Voice, Jeff Saunders, the head of the Last Store and a lobbyist who works for the Retailers Alliance Foundation, described the group's strategy: "There will never be an unanswered press release from a politician, a

supermarket groupie raging about how great it would be, or . . . a newspaper reporter that thinks she knows better," Saunders wrote. "We answer the media when it needs answering—and not all press needs answering, by the way—and we continue to support all those that have supported us and go after the people that haven't supported us . . . and turn them around!"

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next Page >>
 
  • er, um 10/13/2009 6:26:00 AM

    dumbest fucking article I've read in the Voice in a looooooong time

  • Linda 09/13/2009 5:49:00 AM

    My solution to this is to just mail order my wines directly from California and refuse to bow to the monopolistic system that the liquor stores are forcing in New York and surrounding east coast states. Don't the wineries in New York realize that they'll reach more customers and make MORE MONEY (not less) if they can expand into additional market segments? Business 101 folks. Oh, wait...that would require a bit of common sense. Yes? If you won't let me buy wine when I'm buying my pasta, screw this stupid state, my dollars are going back to the west coast where things are SANE! That'll fixya.

  • Josh 08/27/2009 6:24:00 AM

    I didn't know there were such things as grocery store apologists until I read this. Keep sipping that kool-aid Graham.

  • Brian 08/20/2009 4:54:00 AM

    You interviewed and quoted several sources that sided with the supermarkets. Beyond the "lobbyists" from Last Store you failed to offer any input from liquor store owners and/or their employees. Deeper research would offer broader insight.

  • Ed 08/19/2009 9:37:00 PM

    Simple Question: If LEADD is so concerned with underage drinking being fueled by wine sales in grocery stores, why aren't they lobbying as strenuoulsy to get rid of beer sales as well?. I may be underestimating the drinking desires of the avg. 18 year old, but I highly doubt that striking down this inane law would lead to High Schoolers across the state texting their friends with "Dude, I just scored a case of the '05 Calon Segur!!!".

  • Dallas Galvin 08/18/2009 9:29:00 PM

    Nifty article & great on Albany politics, but marred by an obvious ignorance of the wine biz. Two of many points: 1. Economic censorship: Supermarkets, like all box stores, will carry only big name California wines (Yech!). That's supply and distribution reality. Billionaire "grocery store owner" Catsimatidis said he wouldn't carry "the fancy wines. Just table wines and New York State wines." Dream on re: the NYS wines, btw. Supermarkets don't carry local strawberries, much less locally crafted foods. Even California supermarkets carry industrial strength Kendall-Jackson and Smoking Loon, not Orogeny, Educated Guess, Sippino, or any of the fabulous and far less expensive Euro, S.African, or S.American wines. 2. Common sense: Like the arguments for single payer health -- a mix of healthy and more fragile payers levels the economics -- liquor stores, for all their drawbacks, carry a broad mix of common wines and more unusual ones. The volume profits from selling the highly advertised, ubiquitous $8 wines support the slower moving, but often fabulous bigger ones. Everyone knows Veuve Cliquot, but it is definitely not the best OR the best-priced champagne. You come in for the Veuve and learn about the others. The NYS liquor authority is deeply retarded. The litany of their stupid rulings (purportedly to stave off the Mafia)is legion and diabolic: No liquor store, for example, can sell bitters (40% alcohol), but few grocery stores carry them, in part because they're seen (rightly) as alcoholic bev. But no drink can be called a cocktail without bitters. Try finding Peychaud's, Angostura, or Regan's Orange on a Saturday night. Not! And on and on. This is a complicated story.

  • Clive 08/15/2009 7:33:00 AM

    Actually, the liquor stores do have reason. If you look at what has happened in England you will see why. There, pubs are closing at an unprecedented rate even while boozed-up feral teenagers stagger around town centres after dark, vomiting, urinating, and frightening everyone else. The reason? The giant supermarkets (just wait until a TESCO shows up in your 'hood and drives out all other retailers) use alcohol as a loss-leader, selling it at below cost, which has decimated independent outlets that can't match its clout. Teens now sit at home getting blasted on cheap plonk then head to the center to finish off. Is that what you really want? There is such a thing as the law of unexpected consequences you know.

  • Chris Windsor 08/14/2009 10:15:00 PM

    I had no idea such arcane restrictions were still in force in NY (When I am there I am always in hotels). Here in SoCal you can throw a bottle of scotch and a lovely cabernet into the cart along with your Rice Crispies.

  • Center Of Thought 08/14/2009 9:47:00 PM

    F****g waaaaaaaaahh...big deal

  • Lulu 08/14/2009 6:01:00 PM

    What the article fails to mention is that the primary sponsor of the wine in grocery stores was and still is Wegman's, the huge grocery chain, who would most definitely gain in this fight. And they have a lot more money combined than the liquor store lobbies, believe me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not completely to the wine in grocery stores, but this particular bill was written hastily and in an effort to make the state quick money, basically giving much more freedom to the grocery stores in terms of getting franchise licenses and leaving the small stores the short end of the stick. If wine in grocery stores is going to happen, it needs to be under a bill that is written carefully and considerably with both parties in mind. Otherwise, chains like Wegman's WILL put small, independently run stores out of business. And although we wouldn't be as directly affected by this in NYC (because of space issues), the outerlying areas would absolutely see a hit. And if you don't think that kind of economic hit wouldn't be seen in NYC, then think again. Needless to say, I would suggest to the writer of this article to look at all sides of an issue before railing against the independent stores. And NO, I do not work for (or ever have worked for) a liquor store.

  • ken greene 08/14/2009 4:48:00 AM

    You are talking about a controled subtance not gum. If you give every corner store a wine license it would be a nitemare. we have people now that buy beer and cigs with there benefits card. now you want to add wine and maybe liquor to that. Port & sherry are consideredto be in the wine group. Port and sherry is 18% alchol and is abused by alot of homeless people. that don't care if it tastes good that want a buzz. If you want that in your hood, go ahead I don't live there. To scott osborn and john martini its a free market and retailers can carry the wines and liquor that they support. We do need a change, but to put that many people out of work is unfare. we need to work it on over some years.

  • Mike Veseth 08/13/2009 9:05:00 PM

    This is a very interesting article. I used it as a springboard for a piece on The Wine Economics about the potential for reform of American wine laws. http://wineeconomist.com/2009/08/13/wine-laws/

  • Christine 08/12/2009 11:36:00 PM

    Hello from Illinois! Around here, we have grocery stores that sell not just wine, but all sorts of liquor. AND we have liquor stores too. As someone who used to live in New York, I find this thrilling.

  • Beth 08/12/2009 7:01:00 PM

    What every you do, don't come to PA- if you think NY laws are stupid you should deal with our!! Bring your own in this state!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Mike 08/12/2009 5:25:00 PM

    This story does a great job at taking an everyday question and finding the deep political reasons behind it. Nice work. And the law is lame. Liquor, beer, wine and groceries should be sold in the same place. Way more convenient. We have plenty of mom and pop liquor stores in Brooklyn, anyway.

  • j 08/12/2009 7:56:00 AM

    Compromise: Supermarkets: allowed to sell wine Liquor Stores: National drinking age lowered to 18, 16 for selling beer in the store, licensed teen clubs can offer mixed drinks under supervised conditions. MADD: Driving age raised to 17 for school/work driving only, 18 for recreation.

 

Most Popular Stories


Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places

    Voice Places

    Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...

  • VOICE Daily Deals

    VOICE Daily Deals

    Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience

  • My Voice Nation

    My Voice Nation

    Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info

  • Happy Hour

    Happy Hour

    Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips

or

Log in or Sign up

Social Connect:

Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.


Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:





Forgot password?
or

Sign Up or Log in

Social Connect:

Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.


Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:



Privacy policy